The victim's testimony in sexual assault cases is vital and can suffice for conviction without corroboration, provided it is credible.

JUDGMENT :

S. VAIDYANATHAN, CJ.

1. This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 11.03.2021, passed by the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District, Khilehriat, Meghalaya in Special (POCSO) Case No.13 of 2020 and the accused/Appellant herein was convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 5(m) of The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 (in short "POCSO Act, 2012") punishable under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5,000/- in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for six months. The fine amount was directed to be given to the victim girl.

Brief Prosecution Case:

2. A complaint was given by the father of the victim girl on 29.05.2017 before Saipung Police Station, East Jaintia Hills District, Khliehriat, Meghalaya, stating that the accused, namely, Thoura Darnei had committed aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her daughter aged about 4 years and also raped her on 28.05.2017. Based on the complaint, FIR (Ex.P1) in Saipung P.S.Case No.05 (05) 2017 came to be registered on 29.05.2017 against the accused under Section 354 IPC r/w Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

2.1. After investigation, a charge sheet dated 29.05.2017 was laid under Section 5/6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and upon transfer of the case in Special Sessions Case No.31 of 2017, from the file of the Special Judge (POCSO), West Jaintia Hills District, Jowai on 21.08.2020, the Special Judge (POCSO), East Jaintia Hills District had taken cognizance of the case in Special (POCSO) Case No.13 of 2020. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the commission of the offence against the accused, has examined as many as 9 witnesses and marked 6 documents. On the side of the accused, neither witnesses were examined nor documents marked. No statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. was obtained from the victim girl (P.W.5), since she was only 4 years old at the time of incident. The accused was questioned under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied the charges levelled against him. The Trial Court, after analyzing the evidence let in by the prosecution, found the accused guilty of the offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and convicted him as stated supra.

3. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant submitted that a false case has been foisted against the appellant without any conclusive proof against the accused and there were several inconsistencies and discrepancies in the evidence of witnesses, namely, P.Ws.1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, who are father, Doctor, victim girl, mother and Forensic Expert respectively. It was further submitted that the victim girl (P.W.5) was not subjected to any cross examination and when the Court recorded her statement, the usual procedures had not been followed so as to ascertain her capacity to tender evidence.

4. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant also submitted that the Court below erred in punishing the appellant / accused under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012, as there is absolutely no proof to establish that there was a penetrative sexual assault against the victim child. As per the evidence of P.W.2 (Doctor), there was no visible injury in the private part of the victim girl, thereby contradicting the evidence of P.Ws.1, 5 and 6 and therefore, it leads to draw an inference that there was no aggravated sexual assault and no offence under Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 had been committed by the accused, rather it will only constitute an offence of sexual assault under Section 7 of the POCSO Act, 2012.

5. The learned Legal Aid Counsel for the appellant went on to add that as per t